COLUMN: Historical disagreement

Perusing The Press on Election Tuesday, I cringed when I read the headline of Sholeh Patrick’s column, “Remember, remember the 5th of November.” I knew she’d relate the 1603 Gunpowder Plot as told by court historians after the event, a story that led to the demonization of Catholics and to a century of war with Spain.

Indeed, she completely ignored the conclusions reached by serious contemporary historians, who argue that the nefarious Lord Cecil either had advance knowledge of it and let it happen, or else masterminded it and made it happen. In short, to use contemporary political terminology, the Gunpowder Plot was a highly successful false-flag operation, and Guy Fawkes et al. were just the patsies.

I had resolved not to write a letter, but then your editorial of Nov. 6 cautioning against believing a political word in Facebook ads struck me as highly ironic. I find that as regards to your well-intentioned newspaper, one might equally advise readers not to believe a historical opinion proffered by its newspaper columnists. To provide a contemporary example, journalists still commemorate Dec. 7, 1941, as a day “that will live on in infamy” without ever reporting that historians have the documentation to prove that Roosevelt deliberately pursued policies that would force Japan to attack the U.S. They had broken Japanese codes, and knew in advance that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.

ANNE M. STINNETT

Rathdrum